Just 40, Karmel was one of the youngest SEC Commissioners ever appointed. She was described as "judicious and circumspect" but in an interview shortly after her appointment, she bristled when asked about the "revolving door" between government regulators and the securities industry they regulate. "As a citizen," she said, "I don't want to live in a country totally run by government bureaucrats—I mean, I don't want to live in a system run by a cadre of professional civil servants."
Karmel accentuated her private practice experience, rather than her formative SEC years, adding, "There's no doubt that I have a different approach from that of my colleagues here to many issues we consider because of my background."(62) Karmel admitted she was wary about the SEC "trying to legislate corporate morals" and thought the agency should not try to be involved where it has no clear mandate.(63)
During her term, Karmel challenged the SEC enforcement policy because, as she explained, the SEC was losing cases because they misunderstood the political changes that had occurred on the courts.(64) She feared a reprimand from the U.S. Supreme Court over SEC policies, believing that such a rebuke would injure the reputation and authority of the SEC. Stanley Sporkin once complained to her, "Why do you care so much about what the courts think, and not what I think?"
Karmel began what some in the SEC thought was the heretical practice of dissenting from SEC decision and rule-making proposals, particularly in enforcement cases. After she left the SEC, Karmel wrote Regulation by Prosecution: The SEC versus Corporate America, which explained her objections to SEC enforcement policy and practice.(65)
The appointment of Roberta Karmel, and the subsequent appointment of Barbara Thomas in October 1980, as SEC Commissioners created great headway for increased gender equity at the agency. Carter's Advisory Group on Women, along with his desire to increase women in government, and the availability of qualified female candidates with securities law experience propelled the agency to the forefront of federal organizations with women in high-profile positions.
(64) See for example, Blue Chip Stamps v Manor Drug, 421 US 723 (1975); Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 US 185 (1976); and Santa Fe Industries v. Green, 420 US 462 (1977), all of which reduced the reach of federal securities regulation
(65) Roberta S. Karmel, Reflections on My Career, 18 Business Law Today 3 (American Bar Association, January/February 2009); Judith Miller, "S.E.C.'s Voice of Dissension," New York Times, February 20, 1979, D1
The virtual museum and archive is copyrighted by the SEC Historical Society. The Society reserves the right to restrict access to or use of the museum by any user at any time.
Users are prohibited from sharing or downloading any material for publication or commercial purposes without written permission from the Executive Director. Requests for permission must be submitted by email and specify the material requested and for what purpose.
Material used with the Society's permission should be credited to: www.sechistorical.org.